C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 07 TALLINN 000278
SIPDISSIPDISE.O. 12958: DECL: 04/26/2017
TAGS: MARRMOPSNATOPGOVPRELLGLHEN
SUBJECT: U.S.-BALTIC RELATIONS REMAIN STRONG: U.S.-BALTICS
MULITARAL/BILATERAL WORKING GROUP MEETING, APRIL 10-12
Classified By: CDA Jeff Goldstein for reasons 1.4 (b) & (d).
Â¶1. (U) Summary. The Government of Estonia (GOE) hosted the
U.S.-Baltic Multilateral and Bilateral Working Group
Meeting in Tallinn on April 10-12. At the multilateral
working group meetings, the key issues discussed were the
future of the NATO Air Policing mission, international
operations (in particular, Afghanistan and Iraq), NATO
Response Force developments, and the current state of NATO-
EU relations. By and large, U.S. and Baltic counterparts
found common ground on most of the issues and agreed that
U.S.-Baltic relations were positive and healthy.
Additionally, the U.S. delegation held separate bilateral
working group meetings with the Lithuanian, Estonian, and
Latvian delegations. End Summary.
Air Policing
------------
Â¶2. (C) Air Policing (AP) continues to be the most important
NATO issue for all three Baltic States (Balts). In
January, the Balts issued a joint statement requesting NATO
to extend the AP mission until 2018, at which time the
Balts plan to be able to provide their own air defense.
The Balts reiterated their desire for a long-term AP
solution that meets their desire for a 24/7 air defense
system.
Â¶3. (C) Anthony Aldwell, OSD Principal Director for European
and NATO Policy and Head of the U.S. delegation,
acknowledged AP's importance to the Balts, and reiterated
the USG's support for the NATO AP mission and commitment to
evaluate ways to improve efficiencies. While Aldwell noted
the Balts' decision to delay procuring fighter aircraft to
2018 as both strategically and financially sound, he
encouraged their efforts to further reduce the cost burden
for deployments on participating Nations. (Note. With the
exception of Estonia, the Balts did not make any reference
to procuring their own fighter aircraft as part of a
permanent solution due to be made in 2011. End Note.)
Aldwell noted the recent U.S. proposal on AP at NATO, which
recommended a review of the AP mission on a three year
cycle. The U.S. delegation recommended that, in addition
to the primary AP mission, the Balts must make AP more
attractive to contributing countries over the longer term
(e.g., additional training possibilities, cost-sharing to
reduce contributing countries' costs, longer rotations,
improved efficiencies, etc.).
Â¶4. (C) All three Balts spoke at length of the importance AP
is to the public as the most visible sign of the benefits
of NATO membership. Additionally, AP continues to play an
important part in justifying Baltic contributions to NATO
operations in Afghanistan to their respective publics in
addition to the costs of focusing their defense
transformation on achieving expeditionary capabilities.
The Balts have already established a Regional Air
Surveillance and Control Center (BALTNET) in Lithuania that
has assumed command-control responsibility (which was
previously done from Germany at the Combined Air Operations
Center). The Baltic delegations expressed their
satisfaction with the position recently put forward by the
U.S. at NATO on AP.
International Operations
------------------------
Â¶5. (C) The U.S. delegation thanked all three Balts for
their contribution in international operations in the
Global War on Terror, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Additionally, unlike many other allies, Aldwell noted that
none of the Balts has hamstrung its contributions with
restrictive caveats, which has been noticed and appreciated
in Washington. All three Balts reiterated their
commitments in Afghanistan. Although small in absolute
numbers, the Balts said that their contributions in
Afghanistan represented a significant and sizeable
percentage of their deployable forces and military
resources. The Lithuanians described their desire to
continue to support their PRT in Gwohr Province but also
noted the cost of running their operations there consumed
nine percent of their annual defense budget. The Estonians
pointed out that success in Afghanistan will ultimately
require a comprehensive, coordinated approach that includes
TALLINN 00000278 002 OF 007
closer relations with Pakistan, more civilian-led
development projects, and a better message to win Afghani
hearts and minds. The Latvians discussed the probability
of increasing their contribution in 2008 to between 150 and
200 troops.
Â¶6. (C) Although all three Balts have troops in Iraq, they
expressed far less enthusiasm and commitment in comparison
to the Afghanistan mission. All three conceded that
depending on developments on the ground, their contribution
of troops may change configuration (e.g. away from combat
forces to reconstruction and development assistance, NATO
Training Mission in Iraq, etc.). All three were eager to
learn more about progress with the "surge" and the status
of U.S. plans for future troop levels in Iraq. Aldwell
explained that it was premature to make any judgment about
the efficacy of the surge. However, the U.S. delegation
made clear that the USG was committed to a sovereign,
stable, secure Iraq. While encouraging each to continue to
make meaningful contributions of troops in Iraq, Aldwell
expressed thanks for the steadfast support all three have
demonstrated in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
NATO Response Force
-------------------
Â¶7. (C) There was a lengthy discussion on the general
developments of the NATO Response Force (NRF) and the
current NRF-14 rotation. In light of the operational
challenges in Afghanistan last summer, the U.S. delegation
suggested that NRF take on NATO's Strategic Reserve Force
(SRF) mission. Also raised were possibly altering NRF
mission requirements, costs to contributing Nations while
forces are pledged to the NRF, and the need for allies to
fill niche capabilities during each rotation. The Balts
agreed with the idea of using the NRF as the SRF and
suggested if the NRF was not used, it might be lost among
the many competing priorities for European nations. While
all the Balts saw the logic and the efficiencies to be
gained with altering some of the NRF mission requirements,
they were nonetheless all opposed to dropping the NRF's
"initial entry" mission. Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian
interlocutors all argued that this mission provided the
visible and material link between the NRF and Article 5, an
essential element underpinning Baltic political support for
meeting NATO Force Goals.
Â¶8. (C) Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are working closely
together to create a Baltic Battalion, which is to be the
Balts' contribution to NRF-14. Cooperation has advanced to
the financing stage of the Battalion. The key challenge
for all three Balts will be prioritizing resources and
agreeing on leadership of the battalion. As all three
countries are already involved in other international
operations (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.)
and committed to contributing to the European Union (EU)
Battle Group, each country will face challenges in meeting
its force commitments. (Note. The Latvians mentioned they
had considered opting out of EU military structure and
battle group due to limited resources. Participation in
NATO operations remains a top priority for Latvia. End
Note.) Aldwell noted the positive example that Baltic
contribution to NRF sets with other nations. He also
stressed that their cooperation in providing an integrated
battalion was important for maintaining their defense
transformation momentum.
NATO-EU Relations
-----------------
Â¶9. (C) The Lithuanian delegation led a frank discussion on
the current state of affairs of NATO-EU relations. Saulius
Gasiunas, Lithuanian MOD Director for NATO-EU Affairs,
bluntly accused Germany and France of "poisoning relations"
between NATO and the EU. The Lithuanians specifically
pointed to France and Germany's insistence on an
independent and separate European Security and Defense
Policy (ESDP) HQ in Brussels that will only duplicate NATO
resources and diminish European operational capabilities
further. Additionally, the Lithuanians were incredulous
that Baltic concerns seem to be treated as less important
to the EU compared to the attention given to other small
members, principally Cyprus. While the Latvian delegation
felt Gasiunas' assessment overly gloomy, it did admit that
TALLINN 00000278 003 OF 007
Latvian efforts to promote NATO-EU cooperation were not
supported within the EU. The Estonian delegation echoed
both countries, and opined that on the political level,
NATO-EU relations didn't look promising. They felt that at
the moment there are too many divisions within Europe:
Turkey versus Cyprus, Germany and France versus the ten new
eastern members, and EU High Representative Solana versus
NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer. Overall, the
Balts believe NATO to be the preeminent security
organization for Europe and have no desire to waste
resources on redundant requirements or staffs.
Â¶10. (C) Aldwell fully agreed with the problems regarding
NATO-EU cooperation. Despite DOD's concerns over EU
defense policies, Aldwell made clear that the USG supports
a stronger EU so it can assume more responsibility and
participate more in international operations. However,
like the Lithuanians, the U.S. delegation expressed
skepticism that the EU's current actions (i.e., an
independent ESDP HQ) would help in achieving this. The
U.S. delegation encouraged the Balts to meet with other
like-minded allies at the working level in order to help
break through this log jam. Aldwell summed up the
discussion by saying that the U.S. supports closer NATO-EU
cooperation, but the EU must do much more.
Other Items
-----------
Â¶11. (SBU) The following issues were also discussed:
- BALTIC COOPERATION: Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia
continue to cooperate closely in operating the Baltic
Defense College (BDC) and asked that serious consideration
be given to consistently providing a U.S. student in future
years. All three expressed a desire for U.S. participation
in the next Annual Baltic Defense Conference in September
Â¶2007. Aldwell suggested the BDC approach similar U.S.
institutions with requests for visiting lecturers and
speakers as a way to enhance their curriculum.
- STRATEGIC TRANSPORT: All three Balts expressed concern
that the costs of the Strategic Airlift Consortium may be
rising. The U.S. delegation said Consortium members
included German and French suggestions in to the
Consortium's proposal in order to gain their support.
However, Germany and France still "broke silence," which is
causing delays and may needlessly increase costs to the
participants. Aldwell encouraged the Balts to pressure
both Germany and France to drop their opposition to the
Consortium.
- ARMAMENTS COOPERATION: Colonel Mark Price, OSD Regional
Manager for International Cooperation, Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, gave a presentation on U.S.
armaments cooperation program.
Bilateral Working Group (BWG) Meetings
--------------------------------------
U.S.-Estonia BWG Meeting:
Â¶12. (SBU) Bilateral talks with the Estonians were extremely
positive and constructive. Both sides agreed that U.S.-
Estonian relations were close and healthy. The two most
important issues for the Estonian delegation were (1)
overcoming the interoperability challenges between U.S. and
Estonian Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (CIED)
equipment; and (2) U.S. support for Estonia's new Cyber
Defense Center of Excellence (COE). Other issues discussed
were International Military Education and Training (IMET)
and Foreign Military Finance (FMF) funding, Military to
Military (MIL-MIL) cooperation, and further joint
cooperation in operations.
Â¶13. (C) COUNTER-IED INTEROPERABILITY: The Estonians
remained concerned over interoperability problems between
U.S. and Estonian CIED equipment in Iraq. While Martin
Hurt, Ministry of Defense (MOD) Permanent U/S for Defense
Investments, expressed his appreciation to the U.S. for its
assistance and cooperation in arranging for the planned May
test of Estonia's IRIS II CIED system, he made it clear
that the GOE desires a binding, long-term framework
agreement to share technical information which would
TALLINN 00000278 004 OF 007
support "in the field" updates as the threat evolves.
Aldwell fully agreed that cooperation was crucial and said
the U.S. Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO)
coordination with the GOE on the pending test of IRIS II at
the Yuma Proving Grounds was an important indicator of U.S.
commitment. The U.S. delegation informed the Estonians
that a master agreement for the technical exchange of
information was tricky and complicated, taking at least six
months and likely longer, but nonetheless pledged to
continue working with the Estonians to deal with this
challenge. (Note. Hurt recently met with DoD officials in
Washington to discuss future cooperative agreements on
defense procurement. End Note.)
Â¶14. (SBU) CYBER DEFENSE CENTER: In 2006, the Estonians
established a Cyber Defense Center, and ultimately hope it
will be designated as a NATO Center of Excellence (COE).
The MOD has campaigned extensively to drum up support among
allies, eventually receiving commitments of support from
Germany and Spain, but no active U.S. participation. The
Estonians requested U.S. participation in their COE,
specifically in the form of trainers and speakers. The MOD
envisions their COE as critical in the current age of
information warfare and vulnerability of both governmental
and non-governmental communications, which rely heavily on
internet technology. Plans call for organizing two
conferences a year and a number of training
workshops/seminars where participants can focus on
broadening cyber defense capability by making allies
interoperable at the technical, legal, and political
levels. The Estonians made clear they are not asking for
money from either NATO or the United States. Mihkel
Tammet, MOD Director for Communications and IT,
enthusiastically explained that the GOE is financing 80% of
the costs and that the remainder is being funded by other
countries in proportion to their participation in the
center. The Estonians believe that receiving NATO's
imprimatur as a COE and U.S. participation are critical for
achieving more participation by allies. The U.S.
delegation promised to take the Estonian request back to
Washington.
Â¶15. (SBU) OTHER ISSUES: The Estonians thanked the U.S. for
IMET and FMF assistance. They stressed the importance of
IMET and FMF assistance, saying it directly enhanced
Estonia's contributions in the Global War on Terror, and in
particular, in Afghanistan. Hurt remarked that over the
mid- to long-term, IMET will become more important for
Estonia as the GOE is becoming more capable of procuring
its own equipment. In the same vein, the Estonians were
eager for more MIL-MIL cooperation and joint interaction in
operations. The Estonians made two proposals: first,
annual MIL-MIL meetings between U.S. and Estonian joint
staffs at EUCOM; and second, joint military field exercises
and cooperation in the area of air command and control,
particularly as the Balts approach deployments and prepare
to fulfill their NRF-14 commitments. The U.S. delegation
agreed to consider the Estonian proposals. Aldwell made
clear that any joint talks should be coordinated with both
Lithuania and Latvia in order for any U.S. delegation to
make the most effective use of opportunities to meet in the
region.
U.S.-Latvia BWG Meeting:
Â¶16. (SBU) Discussions were positive and focused mostly on
the development of the Latvian armed forces in compliance
with their NATO established force goals. Latvians
highlighted their projected 30 percent increase in their
2007 defense budget but also highlighted the impacts of
strong inflation and a very tight labor-market on equipment
acquisition, personnel recruitment and retention.
Â¶17. (C/NF) NATO AND RUSSIA: The Latvians clearly
articulated several concerns regarding the activities of
Russia in the NATO - Russia Council (NRC). The Latvians
gave examples of Russian attempts to sabotage NATO
decisional autonomy in the way Russian proposals are
phrased. They fear that NATO acceptance of Russian
language comes too easily and may eventually allow Russia
to veto NATO decisions. They related Russian influence to
the German resistance in NATO to Baltic requests for
contingency planning for their defense under Article 5.
They also gave examples of how Russian behavior in the NRC
TALLINN 00000278 005 OF 007
exemplifies their insincerity towards better cooperation
with NATO.
Â¶18. (C/NF) CIED EQUIPMENT: Latvia requested that the U.S.
loan electronic jammers to them in order to protect their
forces during their upcoming deployment to Afghanistan.
The U.S. currently has loaned such systems to the Latvians
in Iraq and the country team is investigating options for
this request with CENTCOM.
Â¶19. (SBU) U.S. SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE: The Latvians made it
clear that the most beneficial resource the U.S. can
provide Latvia at this time is engagement and advice
regarding national defense planning, personnel management,
and systems acquisitions. U.S. financial assistance is
greatly appreciated, and FMF funding and IMET funding have
helped the Latvian armed forces make significant progress
in development. (Note. The country team strongly
supported the Latvian request for assistance in defense
planning, personnel management, and acquisition. End Note)
U.S.-Lithuania BWG Meeting:
Â¶20. (SBU) The discussion with the Lithuanians was a
productive exchange and reflected the strong ties and open
communication that continue to characterize the bilateral
relationship. The main issues of concern for the
Lithuanians were (1) U.S. expectations on the future size
and shape of the Lithuanian contingent in Iraq; (2)
reconstruction efforts of the Lithuanian-led PRT in
Afghanistan; (3) Air Policing; and (4) the status of the
transfer of Osprey-class minesweepers.
Â¶21. (SBU) FUTURE OF LITHUANIAN PRESENCE IN IRAQ: Saulius
Gasiunas reassured the U.S. delegation that Lithuanian
troops will remain in Multinational Division South East
(MND-SE) after the reductions of Danish and British Forces
there this summer. Gasiunas mentioned the pressure
Lithuania felt to remain in Iraq in their current
composition during recent meetings in Vilnius with other
OSD officials. The Lithuanians noted that the size and
composition of the contingent was not likely to remain the
same but this will ultimately be a political decision,
which was yet to be made. The U.S. delegation expressed
appreciation for the Lithuanian intention to stay in Iraq
and acknowledged the significant contributions already
being made by Lithuania in Afghanistan. Aldwell made it
clear the USG wants the current contribution of a combat
unit to continue, and that long-term Lithuanian
participation in the coalition remains important as
resources and personnel allow. Gasiunas responded that the
Lithuanian delegation was happy to get this assurance.
Â¶22. (SBU) LITHUANIAN-LED PRT IN AFGHANISTAN: The Lithuanian
delegation outlined the efforts being made by both the
Ministry of National Defense (MoND) and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs to spur reconstruction in Ghowr Province.
The Lithuanians stated that the operations and maintenance
of the PRT now consumes eight to nine percent of the MoND
budget. Gasiunas explained that the province needs
strategic level infrastructure improvements, such as roads
to fully integrate it with the rest of Afghanistan. He
added that Lithuania is actively seeking international
governmental and non-governmental support and funding, as
the GOL has limited resources to commit to reconstruction.
Gasiunas highlighted recent overtures to the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), facilitated by DAO coordination, to sponsor
strategic infrastructure improvement projects. While only
initial contacts and discussions have been held with the
UAE, Gasiunas was confident that the UAE will prove to be a
good partner. Gasiunas noted the recent Ukrainian
contribution of a medical doctor to the PRT, saying it was
a positive step toward involving that nation in
international operations. The Lithuanian delegation also
expressed the desire for an Afghan National Army presence
in Ghowr by this summer, noting the importance of
demonstrating GOA and ISAF commitment to the region. The
U.S. delegation commended Lithuania for its work in the PRT
and acknowledged the depth of the Lithuanian financial
commitment to the mission. Aldwell reminded the
Lithuanians that their efforts in Ghowr continue to serve
as an example to the rest of NATO of the impact a small
country can have in a crucial mission. He also encouraged
Lithuanian outreach to other nations as a positive step to
TALLINN 00000278 006 OF 007
expanding international support for the reconstruction and
development efforts in Afghanistan.
Â¶23. (SBU) NATO BALTIC AIR POLICING (AP): The Lithuanian
delegation expressed satisfaction with U.S. support,
recently presented to the NATO Military Committee, for the
continuation of the AP mission in the Baltic region.
Gasiunas noted that the MoND is working with Lithuanian
civil aviation authorities and other agencies to explore
possibilities for greater training opportunities so that
rotational AP units can maintain their tactical skills
while deployed. Additionally, Gasiunas stated that
Lithuania is working with Latvia and Estonia to lower the
costs for NATO members sending crews and aircraft to the
mission. However, he noted with dismay that several
possible AP contributors had asked the Balts to pay the
salaries of their personnel deployed to the region. Taking
on earlier U.S. suggestions to improve training
opportunities for units deployed to the AP mission, the
Lithuanian delegation requested additional information on
the specific training requirements for U.S. air crews to
maximize the training value during air policing
deployments. Aldwell acknowledged that the U.S. will send
another rotation in 2009 and stated that training
requirements will probably vary by country and aircraft
type deployed for the AP mission. He said he would ask the
Joint Staff to engage the United States Air Forces in
Europe (USAFE) to provide the Lithuanians with a more
detailed set of requirements and suggested there may be a
scale of training requirements and desires which the Balts
will have to evaluate. (Note. Both Estonian and Latvian
delegates said that Lithuania receives more financial
benefits from the AP units deployed to Lithuania. End
Note.)
Â¶24. (SBU) TRANSFER OF OSPREY CLASS NAVAL MINESWEEPERS: The
Lithuanian delegation requested an update on the Excess
Defense Articles transfer of two Osprey class mine counter
measures vessels. CDR Sean Cannon, from the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency, explained that the transfer of
the ships is not supported by the U.S. House of
Representatives Armed Services Committee (HASC). Two
members of the HASC are objecting to the transfer on the
grounds that the ships are still required in the U.S.
inventory. Gasiunas explained that Lithuania had made
significant plans for incorporating these ships into
service. Lithuania was even hoping for more as they are
vital to these ships fill a NATO Force Goal requirement,
and that Lithuania dedicated significant funds for their
transfer and subsequent upkeep. After Gasiunas pushed for
a sense of the likelihood that the transfer would occur,
Cannon frankly stated that transfer of the ships was not
likely to occur given the opposition of two influential
Members of Congress. Although disappointed, the Lithuanian
delegation was glad to receive an honest assessment of the
situation.
Â¶25. (C) OTHER ISSUES: The Lithuanian delegation explained
the planned deployment of approximately 50 Special
Operations Forces (SOF) troops to southern Afghanistan in
July under ISAF command. Gasiunas noted that operational
and logistical details of the deployment were still being
coordinated, but the contingent will be deployed in the
vicinity of Kandahar. Gasiunas also raised the issue of
Lithuanian defense engagement at the working level with
Belarus, expressing the feeling that more can be done to
draw the Belarusians into the fold while staying below NATO
and EU imposed thresholds for interaction. Aldwell
acknowledged that the U.S. has heard this message from
other allies. Gasiunas stated that Belarusian defense
officials have expressed their willingness to contribute to
international operations, if invited. Lastly, the
Lithuanians thanked the USG for U.S. security assistance,
noting its value in defense transformation, achieving
interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces, and enhanced
Lithuania's ability to participate in operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq. After acknowledging that the
likelihood of continued U.S. security assistance was low
given the many U.S. defense priorities, Gasiunas asked how
much longer FMF and IMET would continue for Lithuania.
Aldwell responded that the USG understands how important
these programs have been to the many countries that receive
assistance. He noted that the programs are administered by
the Department of State and that many factors are weighed
TALLINN 00000278 007 OF 007
to determine allocations. Aldwell opined that the Balts
will continue to receive FMF and IMET allocations for at
least two more years but, beyond that timeframe, he could
not speculate on the level of assistance.
Â¶26. (SBU) This cable was cleared by Anthony Aldwell,
OASD/ISA Principal Director for European and NATO Policy
and Head of the U.S. delegation.
GOLDSTEIN